Well it's been a while, and I'm bored, so I figured I'd make one of these. Questions primarily about schools of thought/the business cycle/policy are welcome, but I'll try and answer what I can.

What exactly is the definition of 'economics' ?

Mate I don't even know.

Hey man

Could you give me a complete rundown of economics? Stuff like where to start learning/book recommendations/quotes

Also what are some cliff notes on YOUR personal economic beliefs? Very interested srs

This may be hard to believe but i'm not exactly the brightest guy on this site. However i am very eager to learn, and your knowledge on this subject is higher than anyone i know in real life. Appreciate it man.

What exactly is the definition of 'economics' ?

the best and most efficient use of the earth's resources to satisfy its inhabitants' needs through the practice of using such resources to produce goods and services

ayyyy

Given current projections of technology and wealth, will my hypothetical grandchildren see the ushering in of a post-scarcity society?

Could you give me a complete rundown of economics? Stuff like where to start learning/book recommendations/quotes

Sure, man. I posted a reading list a little while back, but I have a couple of recommendations I can make here.

Angus Deaton's The Great Escape is a good intro to economic growth. You shouldn't neglect economists like Solow or Schumpeter when it comes to growth theory, either.

Tim Harford's The Undercover Economist Strikes Back deals with the business cycle in an accessible way, although I prefer Todd Knoop's Recessions and Depressions, but it's somewhat more technical.

You should also read the BLS's "Measuring the Economy: a Primer on GDP", "The Consumer Price Index" and "How the Government Measures Unemployment".

If you're not too strong on mathematics, then you'll want to read Hume's Of Money, Milton Friedman's "The Role of Monetary Policy" and Martin Eichenbaum's "Some Thoughts on Practical Stabilisation Policy".

Bob Lucas's "Understanding Business Cycles" is also worth the read. If you're comfortable with maths, however, I can recommend some more technical papers.

Also what are some cliff notes on YOUR personal economic beliefs? Very interested srs

I'm not too sure where I fit. I'm probably mostly New Keynesian, with a heavy investment in neoclassical macro. Original Keynesianism got some important things wrong, and New Keynesianism still gets stuff wrong but to a much lesser extent.

On the whole I prefer to call myself New Wicksellian, which is simply a way of saying I value monetary policy more than the average New Keynesian. I also tend to prefer freer markets than the average New Keynesian, too.

from an economic perspecive, what is the definition of ethics in your own words

I'm not entirely sure how to define ethics from an "economic perspective".

I'm not entirely sure how to define ethics from an "economic perspective".

well, not an economic perspective, but an economics perspective
that was my bad

it'll involve distribution of wealth

and the word "ought"

While I'm thinking about it, I should also say that the minimum wage is a pretty woeful anti-poverty strategy. A lot of MW earners are teens in relatively affluent households, and it obviously discriminates in favour of people who can actually get a job. The benefit of a basic income/wage subsidies is that it specifically targets the people who need assistance.

Why you be hatin on the Austrian school m8?

Because it's fucking shit.

What is your opinion on the inconsistencies in economics?

I'm no expert myself, but financial / tax / economic law has been a big part of my education. One of the few things that has always struck me is how inconsistent it is. By that I am refering to the many different schools and economists disagreeing on pretty fundamental things. There are dozens of extremely intelligent and highly educated people with a very good understanding of economics coming to completely opposite conclusions.

One of the cases where this is very apparent is how people criticise institutions (IMF, ECB...) for making terrible choices. I am not defending these institutions one bit, but they are some of the most renowned economic facilities in the world. The people working there are among the best in their field, having spent decades of their life getting an excellent education and a ton of practical experience, yet I've seen you criticise these people who combined have more experience with and insight in economics than we could ever dream of having. Yet all of this aside, I have seen people criticising them and going as far as calling these institutions absolutely moronic for making a certain choice.

I know I'm doing a terrible job at putting this into words, but I hope my point is still somewhat clear.

The problem isn't with the economics, per se, it's how it translates into policy. Economics is an incredibly complex subject, of course, and most economists are probably wrong about something; the more I learn, myself, the more I find myself drifting to the "centre" of the economic debate.

I don't want to denigrate the existing consensus on a number of issues in economics, and we shouldn't forget just how much most economists agree on--you can pick up an intro textbook from Cowen and one from Krugman and they'd say pretty much exactly the same thing, despite the fact one is neoclassical and one is essentially Keynesian. However, it's still a developing subject. There are innumerable variables to track, which can lead otherwise intelligent people like John Taylor to make claims like money was too easy in 2008, and he says this because he's looking at interest rates. There are myriad reasons why you shouldn't look at interest rates to judge monetary policy, yet economists often do because various models like the IS-LM lead towards such a bias. Using interest rates can be useful, because then you're quicker to realise whether or not you've entered a liquidity trap. . . That is, if you think liquidity traps matter.

And that's what disagreements usually come down to: trying to interpret the wealth of empirical data resulting in innumerable variables. But like I say, that doesn't mean economists don't make progress; we know where Keynes went wrong, we know where Friedman went wrong, we know where most economists have historically gone wrong.

I also think the extent to which there are "schools" in economics is exaggerated greatly. Certain pop "economists" like Ha-Joon Chang like to politicise the field and say economics is split and divided and they throw in all these neat little categories, despite the fact you could make a model with neoclassical, Keynesian, monetarist and Schumpeterian elements if you so desired. It also depends on the time-horizon you adopt; I, personally, think the business cycle in the short-term corresponds fairly well with some kind of Keynesian model, whereas the medium term is dominated by the real business cycle and then when you reach long-term considerations you enter the world of Solow. There are disagreements about whether or not this is the case, but the disagreements probably aren't as paradigm-breaking as you'd imagine.

When it comes to specific institutions like the ECB, then there's a much simpler explanation. There's a certain political 'ethos' that comes with being a central bank; just look at the pressure on the Fed at the moment from Republicans, despite the fact that the Fed has conducted counter-cyclical monetary policy practically by the book. The problem with the ECB specifically is that the German Bundesbank wields significant influence; not only are there historical issues around inflation in Germany, but there are also "ideological" ones as the Bundesbank is primarily what you might call "Orthodox Monetarist". I can't really tell you why this is the case, but the kind of fear this instils of inflation has been the reason why the ECB has been so loathe to conduct desperately-needed measures like QE.

A good example of this ethos is the way Ben Bernanke basically admitted after leaving the Fed that he could've done more. But while being chair he simply couldn't say things like that; political pressure stopped him from doing what he could've done, and stopped him from speaking out against it.

Hopefully that's coherent enough for you; if you have any other specific examples I'll try to explain them as best I can.

What exactly is the definition of 'economics' ?

fuk bich3s g3t $$$$

Post scarcity economy when?

Couple of centuries, maybe.

are you a professor or have a graduate degree?

Nein; I just know more than most here. I make no claims to be an actual economist.

DROPPED

http://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/